Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6] checkpatch.pl: Add SPDX license tag check | From | Joe Perches <> | Date | Fri, 02 Feb 2018 12:55:35 -0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 14:18 -0600, Kate Stewart wrote: > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 12:27 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@huawei.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > On 02/02/18 17:40, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > Add SPDX license tag check based on the rules defined in > > > > > > > > Shouldn't it also check that the license is compatible? > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we shouldn't try to script legal advice. > > > > True. > > > > I believe what was meant was that the > > entry was a valid SPDX License entry > > that already exists as a specific file > > in the LICENSES/ path. > > > > So that entry must be some combination of: > > > > $ git ls-files LICENSES/ | cut -f3- -d'/' | sort > > BSD-2-Clause > > BSD-3-Clause > > BSD-3-Clause-Clear > > GPL-1.0 > > GPL-2.0 > > LGPL-2.0 > > LGPL-2.1 > > Linux-syscall-note > > MIT > > MPL-1.1 > > > > From my perspective, it'd be better if the > > various + uses had their own individual > > license files in the LICENSES/ path. > > > > At the end of december, the SPDX license list[1] was rev'd to > Version: 3.0 28 December 2017. At the request of > FSF, the GNU license family would not use the "+" notation,
That's rather more sensible to me.
This should probably be updated in linux-next in the near future rather than later.
> and would bias towards using "-only" and "-or-later", explicitly. > So adding both variants to the LICENSES/ path aligns with > this forward direction.
It's probably better to remove the + variants.
> > Right now, there are many missing licenses > > that are already used by various existing > > SPDX-License-Identifier: entries. > > > > > > APACHE-2.0 > > BSD > > CDDL
CDDL does not exist standalone and was caused by my defective eyeballs when scanning the SPDX list via:
$ git grep -w "SPDX-License-Identifier:" | \ cut -f3- -d":" | \ sed -r -e 's/^\s+//' -e 's/\*\/\s*//' -e 's/\s+$//' | \ sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
> > CDDL-1.0 > > ISC > > GPL-1.0+ > > GPL-2.0+ > > LGPL-2.1+ > > OpenSSL > > > > There are odd entries like: > > > > GPL-2.0-only > > > > This is the new way to represent GPLv2 only, as described above. > While the GPL-2.0 and GPL-2.0+ notation is still valid, it is deprecated > in the latest version, so transitioning existing over time will probably > be needed.
Probably better to remove and replace the old notation instead of doing it piecemeal.
When the appropriate LICENSE file changes exist, a generic substitution could work well.
$ git grep --name-only "SPDX-License-Identifier:" | \ grep -vP "^(?:LICENSES/|Documentation/process/license-rules\.rst)" | \ xargs perl -p -i -e 's/SPDX-License-Identifier:\s*(L?GPL-\d\.\d)\+/SPDX-License-Identifier: \1-or-later/;s/SPDX-License-Identifier:\s*(L?GPL-\d\.\d)(?!-or-later)/SPDX-License-Identifier: \1-only/'
> So I think the list of licenses to be added to > LICENSES/ path is: > > APACHE-2.0 > BSD > CDDL > CDDL-1.0 > ISC > GPL-1.0-only > GPL-1.0-or-later (note: actually same contents as one GPL-1.0-only) > GPL-2.0-only > GPL-2.0-or-later (same contents as GPL-2.0-only) > LGPL-2.0-only > LGPL-2.0-or-later (same contents as LGPL-2.0-only) > LGPL-2.1-only > LGPL-2.1-or-later (same contents as LGPL-2.1-only)
If LGPL-n.m -only and -or-later are the same, there's probably no need for duplicate LICENSE files and just making sure LGPL-n.m without any other wording is exclusively used is proper.
> OpenSSL > > Having files with the same contents, but different names is > irritating, but I can't see a another way of complying with REUSE > guidelines. Any better suggestions?
What and where are the REUSE guidelines?
https://reuse.software/dev/ doesn't show me much.
> > > > Parentheses around AND/OR aren't consistent. > > > > The SPDX specification has an appendix that calls for "(",")" > around every license expresssion. After discussion with some > developers it was decided to be ok to relax that, and only add them > when they were essential to clarify the logic. The next rev of the > SPDX specification will have this clarified as well. I think we caught > most of the changes in the kernel documentation patches for describing > this, but if you have specific cases to be reviewed, happy to have > a look. > > Thanks, Kate > > > [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/
| |